ICANN's plan would allow for the creation of hundreds of new gTLDs, letting companies such as Apple, Toyota and BMW, for example, apply for domain names ending in .apple, .toyota or .bmw.

Esther Dyson, a former ICANN chairman, told a hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee the expansion of gTLDs was unnecessary and would lead to a "profusion of domain names" that would only serve to confuse Internet users.

"Creating a whole set of redundant names isn't useful," Dyson said.

"This whole idea is fundamentally misguided," she said. "I hope ICANN will go back and reconsider."

Daniel Jaffe, executive vice president of the Association of National Advertisers, said ICANN's plan is "fundamentally flawed."

"Companies are going to have to buy their name back to protect themselves," Jaffe said. "Even big companies will be facing very large expenses."

President and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Rod Beckstrom (R), and Peter Dengate (L), chairman of the board, take part in an ICANN meeting in Singapore in June 2011. A plan to expand the number of Internet domain names came under fire in the US Congress on Thursday, a day after the head of the Federal Trade Commission said it could potentially be a "disaster."

Angela Williams, general counsel for the YMCA, said the new gTLD program will impose excessive costs on non-profit organizations like her youth group.

"The new gTLD program compromises use of the Internet by increasing the risk of fraud, cybersquatting, and trademark infringement and by significantly escalating the cost to protect against such unlawful activities," she said.

"The ultimate cost in proceeding through the entire application process alone could reach several hundred thousands of dollars," Williams said.

ICANN plans to charge a $185,000 application fee for a new gTLD.

The criticism of the gTLD expansion came a day after Jon Leibowitz, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, expressed concern about the plan during testimony before another congressional committee.

"We are very, very concerned that this roll out of new gTLDs has the potential to be a disaster for consumers and for businesses," he said.

"Businesses will have to defensively register all of their names," Leibowitz said. "Our sense is it's burdensome to businesses. We see enormous cost here to consumers and businesses and not a lot of benefit."

"It is the product of well thought out, thoroughly debated policies that are designed to benefit the billions of Internet users through increased competition, choice and innovation," Pritz said.

He said the planned expansion was the result of a six-year consultation by a wide variety of stake-holders and opposition to the plan was a "PR campaign driven by industry groups" using "revisionist history."

"They are now forum shopping and asking Congress to give them another bite at the apple," he said.

ICANN, a California-based non-profit corporation, approved the expansion of gTLDs in June. While applications for new domain names are being accepted in January the first new gTLDs are not expected until next year.

Internet minders voted Monday to allow virtually unlimited new domain names based on themes as varied as company brands, entertainment and political causes, in the system's biggest shake-up since it started ...

Recommended for you

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that federal courts can hear a dispute over Colorado's Internet tax law. One justice suggested it was time to reconsider the ban on state collection of sales taxes from companies outside ...

Hillary Rodham Clinton used a personal email account during her time as secretary of state, rather than a government-issued email address, potentially hampering efforts to archive official government documents ...

User comments : 3

These archaic 3 character extensions, on both files and website addresses, have stuck around far too long. There are much better ways of doing things. An internet address could easily be a plain text string with no stupid http or www or com... I understand that http differentiates from other protocols and www differentiates from other networks but there are much better ways to handle this internally that the end user would be unaware of.

If you don't want to go to the new domains, don't type them in. Once we get ipv6 fully involved I will be even less worried that the "government" won't be able to "protect" me from the big bad internet.

http seems necessary at this time, like you said it defines protocol. The www is totally redundant and every server manager know this. www is usually set to link to the same page as if nothing was there at all. Why people use it is simply habit and a waste of 4 taps of the keyboard. I never use it for pages. You can make all kinds of great addresses using personally defined prefixes. As far as adding to the available suffixes it could truly turn into a pain in the a$$ for businesses.

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.

Javascript is currently disabled in your web browser. For full site functionality, it is necessary to enable Javascript.
In order to enable it, please see these instructions.